Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
Clinton Doctrine versus Bush Doctrine
Chuck Morse
The war against radical Islamic aggression will be conducted in one of two ways. Either the policies of former President Bill Clinton, as carried forth by the Democratic leadership in Congress and by the Democratic Presidential candidates, or the policies of President George W. Bush will prevail. Rarely in politics has the difference been tow approaches on an issue been so clearly drawn and rarely are the consequences of the choice made more dire.
By their lack of action in the face of growing terrorist assaults, the Clinton administration exhibited a policy of appeasement. The underlying idea exhibited by Clinton, in his lack of response to the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of Khobar Towers, the American Embassies in Nairobi and Dar el Salaam, and the USS Cole, was that it was bad for the United States to make the terrorists mad. The contention was that a military response would contribute to more terrorism so therefore it was best to do absolutely nothing, which was what Clinton essentially did. The terrorists were emboldened every time America failed to respond to the point that they were able to glibly cross American airport turnstiles on Sept. 11, 2001 and turn American passenger planes into missiles.
The Clinton doctrine is carried forth today by Democrats who blame America for the terrorists who seek to overturn the will of millions of Iraqis who voted in the first free election held in the region in history. While American servicemen selflessly and valiantly work to help the infant Iraqi government secure democracy in a region that has never known freedom, America, according to the advocates of the Clinton doctrine, is to blame for the very murderers who seek to stop that infant democracy. This twisted belief is false and dangerous.
In complete contrast, The Bush doctrine calls for resolute military action against the aggressor as the best means of reducing and eventually eliminating the threat. According to this belief, standing up for freedom will rally freedom lovers everywhere. By declaring the moral superiority of our liberal democratic system over the system represented by the Islamic extremists, Bush believes he will lead the way toward the same result as did similar declarations made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt over Nazism and President Ronald Reagan over Soviet Communism. It should be noted that both Nazism and Communism had their share of American appeasers in their day.
Today, the Clinton doctrine gains steam in the west even as Iran moves at breakneck speed toward developing a nuclear bomb and terror plots are uncovered with greater frequency. Just last week, Great Britain removed any mention of the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe from their school curriculum out of fear that such teaching “offended” a Muslim population which denies the Holocaust.
The Republicans in the Senate have stood with President Bush and the Iraqi people by voting down the Democratic led resolution to set a timetable for evacuating American troops from Iraq. The President is free to continue the successful strategy of General David Petraeus at least for the time being. Progress, however painful, is being made in Iraq and in a Middle East that yearns to liberate itself from regressive forces. Let’s hope that the lessons of history have been learned and understood by enough people in positions to effect positive change.
For more information, please check out the excellent web site www.anti-cair-net.org.
Chuck Morse is a Boston-area radio-talk-show host, author, columnist and former Republican congressional candidate. Web Site, email, phone: (617) 271-5044 and The Conservative Voice.
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 24 September 2007